How an opt out got into this bill is beyond me. Why I send these letters from the PPA to my senators and what not I have no idea because there is zero chance texas will not opt out so I am wasting my time trying to get this passed.

Edit. AND... Now I actually hope it doesn't pass because I will end up being blocked from where everybody is playing. People in states need to think about that and stop trying to help get a bill passed that will end up screwing half of us.

I can see CA,PA, NV,NJ and NY large states with big state gaming interest going to an intrastate model. These states may opt-out thinking they might be better of down the road running intrastate gaming.

Esp with the current bill that allows all casino type games and not just poker.
here In PA in the news this week they've been talking about how PA took in more gaming revenue then NV or NJ. The governor and other lawmakers are talking up the fact 'that's because of the HIGH tax rate on casinos'. They love the tax revenue brought in by these high taxes esp after many said you can't charge this much the casinos wont be able to profit and will not offer games.

PA will try their hardest to opt-out, our politicians will want to protect all that revenue coming in from casinos. The tax revenue states receive under any of these bills in Congress isn't nearly enough to satisfy our lawmakers. I fear PA lawmakers will see IG as added competition to the B&M rooms at a much smaller % in tax then they get now.

The opt outs have always been part of this. I think it was swept under the rug a little because they new the bill would lose a lot of support.

Read this:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...on-you-837403/

I live in California. Even if California will opt out I still want a good version (e.g. no criminalization in opt out states, no 50% tax burden on players for unlicensed sites) of the Frank bill to pass. Sometimes you gotta take one for the team.

I will make a bet that the number of opt out states under the current version of the bill will be 5 or less, if you exclude from that number states that also pass their own intrastate online gaming instead (including some that might opt to offer online gaming through their lotter).

Certainly may be worth it.

We need to make folks more aware of the provision and let them make their own decision though. Hopefully this getting out of committee does that.

Posts saying things like 48 states may opt in do more harm than good, IMO.

+1 from another Callifornian.

No, Im talking about states that opt out of the federal licensing system for wagering purposes. I dont want to start having to judge whether some ****ty intrastate system is good for players, nor how long it might take for a state to get an intrastate system up and still count.

Since only two states should opt out (Utah and Hawaii) and only maybe four states have the scale for an intrastate pool, I'll do the bet at over six getting five to one.

Well played, sir.

FWIW, I talked with a friend in MA who is connected to the political scene very well through his job (there was an article in State House News Service today he showed me that talked about Frank's bill and the effect on MA casino negotiations, I cant link it as its a paid service). He has spoken to state leaders on many occasions, and has done a significant amount of work related to casinos in MA.

I explained the bill as it is and the revenue component and asked what he thought about the state opting in/opting out in light of continuing casino negotiations, his knowledge of state leaders, and the article.

He laughs and said MA opts out, 100%, no doubt in his mind and he was surprised I even asked.

Anecdotal of course, but I was surprised at how quickly and strongly he said it was a certain opt out.

I believe that this is what will happen for about 85 percent of the states and all the work to get this passed will just make it harder for the majority of us to play online poker. I am surprised reading this thread that I seem to be the only one saying this.

If my state opts out how difficult will it be to play? More difficult than it is right now? What options will be out there?

Also, about how long will it take to opt out?

I live in VA so I know my party will not last very long!

Opt outs don't ban poker in opt-out states. Rather, the legislation sets up a system by which participating states can offer licensed poker. Opt out states simply don't participate.

While the separate tax legislation does currently contain a penalty for players on unlicensed sites, PPA is fighting for its removal.

I can't speak to how difficult it will be to play.

As for how long it will take to opt-out: Virginia has a part-time legislature. It meets for 30 days in odd numbered years then 60 in even numbered years. The session can be extended by 30 days, so they are effectively 60 and 90 day sessions.

They start in mid-January. So if the bill passes this year (not likely, imo), Virginia will only have until mid-April 2011 to opt out. If it passes after mid-April 2011 (which is more likely) then Virginia will have until mid-May 2012 to opt out.

TE, under this law, say I travel to separationist countries (italy, france, etc...) and withdraw and deposit back every time I go there and come back to the US, would I have to pay that 50% tax every single time on the same part of my BR I've paid taxes on already?

(all this assuming I'd live in an opt out state and would have to play on unlicensed sites)

Easy. It got in there because we fought hard to keep it from being opt in.

Sorry, but gaming law has traditionally been the purview of the states. In fact, UIGEA's backers claimed that they were helping state enforcement efforts in passing that law.

You have benefited already. Our efforts to date have helped keep the status quo in Texas. Had poker players done nothing (which was perhaps possible -- look at the sports bettors and casino gaming enthusiasts), UIGEA would have gone into effect a couple of years ago. Had it failed to slow poker, Congress would have at least discussed toughening the law. Kyl would have leaned on the DoJ hard with claims that they refused to support the will of the people and the law of the land.

So, this wedge in Congress that had stopped worse legislation by keeping us on offense (as I say a lot, it's our best defense).

There are opportunities to toughen the opt out, which PPA will pursue with vigor. However, Congress won't force this on states like Utah (which has no commercial gaming). That's not how our federal system works.

IMO, the best hope for Texas is to have a national system with a proven track record. Texas could see this is preferable to a failed prohibition and decide to participate.

Failure to create a viable system in America, OTOH, will just cause our opponents to align in opposition. If the NFL, FoF, state lotteries, B&M casino interests, and others will seek to ban us. If we have no alternative in Congress, they'll get something through. Then where will Texas be?

I'd rather play a site that chose not to get licensed than to have to break some new anti-player federal law just to play.

I believe it's based on net deposits.

Also, FWIW, IMO this penalty would have the lowest compliance rate of any tax law ever.

One thing that constantly amazes me is how some people can hold two completely contradictory views at the same time and not realize they are contradictory.

For example, some people seem to believe that Tribal and B&M gaming interests have enormous political power. So much power that they will be able to get 40 or 45 state legislatures to opt-out. At they same time they believe that the Tribal and B&M gaming interests have very little power, so little that an upstart advocacy group of poker players can simply convince the Federal Government to ignore these interests and pass an online poker system that is mandatory for all 50 states.

I'll not mention the fact that the majority of these B&M interests, and even a few tribal interests, actually want in on a federal US online poker system.

I guess this sort of dual thinking is par for the course in the good ole USA, though.

Otherwise how do you explain the fact that our enemies are fighting so hard to keep online poker from being licensed by the Federal government? If Federal licensing is actually going to result in 90% of US citizens no longer having access to online poker you would think they would be all for it. Yet they have fought it tooth an nail.

Ah, the irony of life.

Skallagrim

Good points.

Haven't heard anything substantial yet about Illinois or Wisconsin. Anybody?

I sent a letter to Andrew Cuomo who is likely the next New York governor. Will post his response when its received.

Im not fully convinced texas is opt out, but then again that could just be my optimistic ass

jford:

You're not the only one saying (or thinking) this. The PPA robots on here have received their orders from Chairman Al: "We bulldoze this through regardless of how many states opt out. It really doesn't matter, because if we get rid of the opt-out provision then the bill doesn't pass, and passing the bill is the most important thing of all!"

I was listening to a radio interview this morning with Dr. Robert Bentley, who is the leading candidate to be the next Governor of Alabama. On his own volition, Dr. Bentley left no doubt as to how opposed he is to "gambling". My state, Alabama, will probably be the first state to opt out.

Former DJ

What is a small state like Massachusetts going to do with their own intrastate Internet gambling site? At least for poker it will be dead. Does the state political leaders really believe that their own site will thrive and yield more revenue than their share of a federal system? What company would want to operate such a site under heavy taxation?

IMO, California might be big enough to go one its own, but not most states like MA. IMO, no intrastate online gambling system will yield more tax revenue than a share of the federal one because online gambling, especially online poker, will not support heavy taxation. When people want to gamble, or play poker, online, they want to do so a very low stakes; not the stakes found in a casino.